alert The fund can't be withdrawal from Epik.com via Masterbucks wallet

[enamebroker]

It happened on 23rd Aug 2022 and this matter lasted almost one month without any process. Masterbucks.com declined my fund withdrawal and disabled the button of fund withdrawal. And I contacted Epik.com and got no further action even if Rob Monster got involved in it for two weeks. All the time I was told in email by management review.

What is wrong with Epik.com? Do you think it is normal to disable fund withdrawal? How can I get back my fund from Epik.com? Thanks for your suggestion.

 

[Derek Peterson]

Thanks. That sounds a bit like reporting a completed LTO domain sale on NamePros, while not all installments have been paid yet. In the case of Epik Holdings, the press release mentions a completed acquisition, but if I understand you correctly, Mr Monster lied about this.

I don't know anything about a press release but you can still have a completed deal without all payments made. That is the deal with Kobalt. They seem like good people. Glad they got out but that isn't really good money. If they paid it all out to the Epik escrow bag holders they'd be great people but they're probably content with being good.

 

[Future Sensors]

I don't know anything about a press release but you can still have a completed deal without all payments made.

Brilliant. You should apply for a job at Epik Holdings.

 

[NicTraders]

How did this Brian Royce become the CEO anyway, where did he come from, and what is his background? He mentioned fiduciary duties, but he's so far broken all of them.

No one really knows. He doesn't seem to have any business experience which would qualify him to lead a registrar. And actually he doesn't seem to have been particularly successful in any business. Someone else suggested that he was installed by one of Epik's investors but I don't think that is proven.

How much debt does Epik have as a company. I mean can those debts be separated from private debts, and other connections of its owners, ceos. If it is a publicly traded company, how can you check who owns how many shares, and share price (I know nothing about stockmarket). I mean, Epik could do well , as soon as it starts working, and make profit, so maybe someone should buy it as it is (maybe for "free", because of its debt), and pay everyone's money, and make domain registration possible, make chats work again. Or is it not possible to separate Epik from 20M debt everyone is talking about... A while ago Epik was working perfectly, but some people hated and attacked Epik. Did they have an agenda. Maybe Epik was invited to becoming evil, or was forced to show their true face (with crypto crash).

No-one can quantify exactly what Epik owes. I think Derek Peterson has some numbers from his best reckoning, but not even Brian seems to know, since he has mentioned in the past that escrow transaction debts came to light that he was not aware of. They are not publically listed. The potential value to a buyer has all been discussed in this thread before. In a nutshell, there isn't much (if any) given the reputation damage and the fact that they seem to have virtually no assets left (bulk domains sold off, various projects shut down, and other relationships that seem to have been dissolved.

 

[bmugford]

No-one can quantify exactly what Epik owes. I think Derek Peterson has some numbers from his best reckoning, but not even Brian seems to know, since he has mentioned in the past that escrow transaction debts came to light that he was not aware of. They are not publically listed. The potential value to a buyer has all been discussed in this thread before. In a nutshell, there isn't much (if any) given the reputation damage and the fact that they seem to have virtually no assets left (bulk domains sold off, various projects shut down, and other relationships that seem to have been dissolved.

On the point about what Epik owes, to me the only relevant number is really what they owe to customers.

I don't really care what they owe to investors, shareholders, or other insiders.
They should be last in line to get their money.

The victims are the customers who have been screwed over by Epik. Epik takes in real money and leaves the customers with fake worthless money (Masterbucks). This scheme is likely the only way they are able to still operate.

Brad

 

[NicTraders]

On the point about what Epik owes, to me the only relevant number is really what they owe to customers.

I don't really care what they owe to investors, shareholders, or other insiders.
They should be last in line to get their money.

The victims are the customers who have been screwed over by Epik. Epik takes in real money and leaves the customers with the fake money (Masterbucks).

Brad

I agree that customers are the main victims, however the relevant debt from an official perspective would be a great deal more than what is owed just to them. It's also worth keeping in mind that there could be suppliers and ex-mployees with no knowledge of what was happening, who were also shafted by Epik. They are another class of victim.

I don't know if it works the same in the US as it does in my country, but there could well be secured creditors who will get first bite of the cherry if there is any return when Epik finally pull the pin. Over here in Australia, if a company goes belly-up, financiers tend to be the secure creditors who get the return (even though they need it the least) and suppliers and customers are left out in the cold. I'm not saying it's fair, but that's just usually how it works. I have lost money several times as a supplier to companies that went into receivership. It sucks, there's no doubt about that.

 

[bmugford]

I agree that customers are the main victims, however the relevant debt from an official perspective would be a great deal more than what is owed just to them. It's also worth keeping in mind that there could be suppliers and ex-mployees with no knowledge of what was happening, who were also shafted by Epik. They are another class of victim.

I don't know if it works the same in the US as it does in my country, but there could well be secured creditors who will get first bite of the cherry if there is any return when Epik finally pull the pin. Over here in Australia, if a company goes belly-up, financiers tend to be the secure creditors who get the return (even though they need it the least) and suppliers and customers are left out in the cold. I'm not saying it's fair, but that's just usually how it works. I have lost money several times as a supplier to companies that went into receivership. It sucks, there's no doubt about that.

If you include all debt obligations the number is probably astronomical, because outside debt to customers and investors, they likely owe a lot of money for these "acquisitions" which were probably on payment plans.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

I don't know if it works the same in the US as it does in my country, but there could well be secured creditors who will get first bite of the cherry if there is any return when Epik finally pull the pin. Over here in Australia, if a company goes belly-up, financiers tend to be the secure creditors who get the return (even though they need it the least) and suppliers and customers are left out in the cold. I'm not saying it's fair, but that's just usually how it works. I have lost money several times as a supplier to companies that went into receivership. It sucks, there's no doubt about that.

Some companies go out of business, despite good faith efforts.

They normally file bankruptcy when they have exhausted all reasonable options to pay their bills.

That is not the case here. You have corporate abuse such as commingling escrow funds, and using an internal currency to scam customers out of real money.

They are selling off assets in private transactions.

Where is this money going? It is not going to pay customers back.

That is clearly not good faith.

Anyone connected to Epik as far as executives, investors, and shareholders deserve to be left holding the bag.

The executives got Epik into this problem and continue to operate the scam.
The investors invested in a loser.

It is not acceptable for Epik to pay insiders or continue to fund operations on the backs of scammed customer funds.

Brad

 

[NicTraders]

If you include all debt obligations the number is probably astronomical, because outside debt to customers and investors, they likely owe a lot of money for these "acquisitions" which were probably on payment plans.

Brad

Yes. It's also worth noting that many investors may not legally be owed a cent. It all depends on how the investment was structured. Probably the majority of investors in situations like this aren't creditors - they just lose their money.

Some companies go out of business, despite good faith efforts.

They normally file bankruptcy when they have exhausted all reasonable options to pay their bills.

That is not the case here. You have corporate abuse such as commingling escrow funds, and using an internal currency to scam customers out of real money.

They are selling off assets in private transactions.

Where is this money going? It is not going to pay customers back.

That is clearly not good faith.

Anyone connected to Epik as far as executives, investors, and shareholders deserve to be left holding the bag.

The executives got Epik into this problem and continue to operate the scam.
The investors invested in a loser.

It is not acceptable for Epik to pay insiders or continue to fund operations on the backs of scammed customer funds.

Brad

I agree that there is corporate abuse here. There is no doubt about that. And my guess is that they're just fixing up various other debts with the assets they've sold, but no-one really knows. No it's not acceptable to fund the business on the back of scammed customers. That is the very definition of insolvent trading (and in this case, they have been fraudulent).

However I don't quite share your opinion that all investors and shareholders are guilty by association and should suffer as a result. Kathleen's retirement was tied up in her domain, and she has effectively had those funds stolen from her. So, what if I was an investor in Epik and had put my retirement funds in there based on the lies RM told? If there are investors like that I feel for them exactly the same as I feel for Kathleen.

I have investments in a number of companies. I am not rich at all. None of those individual investments amount to $100k, but the cumulative total is well over that. For me, these are hopefully for my retirement. As an investor in these companies, I can only believe what I am told on a pitch deck. Yes, you can attempt to do further research, but for early-stage investments it's nigh on impossible to get much more relevant info than what the company wants to tell you.

Sure, there will be investors in Epik who know what's going on and are party to it. For them, I have no sympathy if they lose money (though the sad situation is that they are the ones most likely to obtain a return one way or the other). But it's also highly likely that there are small investors who have put funds in (which are extremely valuable to them) based on trusting a pack of lies. That's not their fault any more than it would be Kathleen's fault for trusting Epik to do what they originally said. Both have been defrauded IMHO. As you may have guessed, I've lost money on a couple of investments over the years because companies either flat-out lied, or didn't do what they said they were going to do. I know what it feels like to lose money that's intended for your eventual retirement. And I have every bit of sympathy for people in a situation like that.

Yep, sure, there will be some small investors who throw money into an investment without any research or any real thought at all, and maybe you could argue that they deserve what they get if an investment goes south, but that's not always the case...

Just another point of view...

 

[bmugford]

Yes. It's also worth noting that many investors may not legally be owed a cent. It all depends on how the investment was structured. Probably the majority of investors in situations like this aren't creditors - they just lose their money.

Investors are generally going to lose their investment, when they invest in a loser...as they should.

It doesn't really matter what the contract says when it comes to investors.

Even if it was some type of preferred investment, a company can't just scam customers to pay that money back to investors.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

However I don't quite share your opinion that all investors and shareholders are guilty by association and should suffer as a result. Kathleen's retirement was tied up in her domain, and she has effectively had those funds stolen from her. So, what if I was an investor in Epik and had put my retirement funds in there based on the lies RM told? If there are investors like that I feel for them exactly the same as I feel for Kathleen.

Well, in that case you made a poor investment. It happens.

Losing money on an investment is always a possibility. It's a risk people knowingly take.

You likely would have a strong claim against Epik, Rob, Brian and others relating to the corporate abuse that lead to this outome.

However, customers had no choice in their debt. Epik commingled escrow funds, and were unable to pay bills. They continue to operate screwing more customers over.

All customers should be paid back before one penny is paid back to an investor IMO.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

Sure, there will be investors in Epik who know what's going on and are party to it. For them, I have no sympathy if they lose money (though the sad situation is that they are the ones most likely to obtain a return one way or the other). But it's also highly likely that there are small investors who have put funds in (which are extremely valuable to them) based on trusting a pack of lies. That's not their fault any more than it would be Kathleen's fault for trusting Epik to do what they originally said. Both have been defrauded IMHO. As you may have guessed, I've lost money on a couple of investments over the years because companies either flat-out lied, or didn't do what they said they were going to do. I know what it feels like to lose money that's intended for your eventual retirement. And I have every bit of sympathy for people in a situation like that.

I agree it does suck. This entire situation sucks.

The main difference to me though is an investor knowingly took a risk, where a customer did not.

I also don't think Epik has many small investors. Most of their known investors / shareholders are well connected.

Brad

 

[NicTraders]

Even if it was some type of preferred investment, a company can't just scam customers to pay that money back to investors.

totally agree.

However, customers had no choice in their debt. Epik commingled escrow funds, and were unable to pay bills. They continue to operate screwing more customers over.

True.
I would certainly want all customers to be made whole first too. I guess my point is that both (whether a customer, or a hypothetical small investor that I described) lost money based on lies. One trusted E to conduct a transaction as they should while the other trusted E to handle their money responsibly. Thus I feel equally for both parties.

 

[bmugford]

totally agree.


True.
I would certainly want all customers to be made whole first too. I guess my point is that both (whether a customer, or a hypothetical small investor that I described) lost money based on lies. One trusted E to conduct a transaction as they should while the other trusted E to handle their money responsibly. Thus I feel equally for both parties.

Everyone who has been screwed over should be paid back, though customers should be first.

At this point there has been no major reported customer debt paid in months...so the money is going somewhere else. That means it is likely going to executives, investors, or shareholders.

If Epik just filed bankruptcy when they could not pay their bills, there is a legal process to handle liquidation.
Instead they are continuing to operate, sell off assets, and pick and choose where that money goes.

That is not right, and really is yet another sign of corporate abuse.

Brad

 

[NicTraders]

I agree it does suck. This entire situation sucks.

The main difference to me though is an investor knowingly took a risk, where a customer did not.

I also don't think Epik has many small investors. Most of their known investors / shareholders are well connected.

Brad

Very true. To be the devil's advocate, you could say that customers should have researched Epik, seen they weren't accredited to offer Escrow transactions, and not done the transaction. But I'm not big on that argument either.

Yeah, my guess is that you're right - I was thinking of a hypothetical small investor, but there are certainly investors like I described who hold small investments in other companies, and they're based on lies and made-up figures.

 

[bmugford]

Very true. To be the devil's advocate, you could say that customers should have researched Epik, seen they weren't accredited to offer Escrow transactions, and not done the transaction. But I'm not big on that argument either.

You could argue the warning signs were there for awhile, but Epik acted like an escrow company.

I don't think it would be reasonable for a customer to predict an "escrow" company is going to take in actual currency from the buyer, then stick them with something worthless (Masterbucks).

That is what happened in @Kathleen Kalaf case. She was ripped off for $91K.

That is not how escrow works. That is more like how wire fraud works.

As an investor, you always know there is some risk.

Brad

 

[Future Sensors]

I also don't think Epik has many small investors. Most of their known investors / shareholders are well connected.

It may be quite a complicated scheme if you map out all the Epik Holdings related companies, people who run these companies, work there, or invest in them. Brian M. Royce officially signed a legal document on behalf of DNProtect, which may not have been correct, I think. They don't really care at all, it seems...

 

[GNP]

To be the devil's advocate, you could say that customers should have researched Epik, seen they weren't accredited to offer Escrow transactions, and not done the transaction. But I'm not big on that argument either.

To play the devil's advocate -- as you say -- how should I, as a customer, research a registrar to see if they are accredited for escrow??? (And whatever your answer is, it would be doubly hard for someone in another country to be able to do the research (not knowing how things are supposed to work in the US), especially if English is not their primary language.)

There is a growing list of well known domain registrar's that have marketplaces where you can buy/sell domains with the registrar seemingly playing the role -- in theory, but likely NOT in legality -- of "Escrow". Like GD, DD, NC, Sav, etc...

To be completely honest about it, other than Escrow .com which IS an accredited escrow company are ANY of the domain registrars listed above accredited to offer Escrow??? (My gut feeling is probably not.)

If not, then it wouldn't even be possible for a customer to tell the risk difference between doing a domain transaction on Epik and any of the other registrar's mentioned above.

 

[bmugford]

To play the devil's advocate -- as you say -- how should I, as a customer, research a registrar to see if they are accredited for escrow???

There is a growing list of well known domain registrar's that have marketplaces where you can buy/sell domains with the registrar seemingly playing the role -- in theory, but likely NOT in legality -- of "Escrow". Like GD, DD, NC, Sav, etc...

To be completely honest about it, other than Escrow .com which IS an accredited escrow company are ANY of the domain registrars listed above accredited to offer Escrow??? (My gut feeling is probably not.)

If not, then it wouldn't even be possible for a customer to tell the risk difference between doing a domain transaction on Epik and any of the other registrar's mentioned above.

While similar in practice, there is a difference between being a marketplace and being an escrow company.

Epik and Rob embraced the "escrow" term while not being properly licensed.
The field is heavily regulated for a reason, to avoid this type of corporate abuse.

Rob quotes some stupid "escrow" definition in Black's Law Dictionary, which is a book sovereign citizen nutters often point to and say they were "traveling" when being pulled over while driving. Sovereign citizens think many laws and regulations don't apply to them.

This also played out when Epik got fined for offering insurance products without a proper license.

Escrow is governed by the laws of the states, not some antiquated definition.

If any actual licensed escrow company went under, the funds are protected.

Brad

 

[GNP]

While similar in practice, there is a difference between being a marketplace and being an escrow company.

Epik and Rob embraced the "escrow" term while not being properly licensed.
The field is heavily regulated for a reason, to avoid this type of corporate abuse.

Rob quotes some stupid "escrow" definition in Black's Law Dictionary, which is generally something sovereign citizen nutters point to and say they were "traveling" when being pulled over while driving.

Escrow is governed by the laws of the states, not some antiquated definition.

If any actual licensed escrow company went under, the funds are protected.

Brad

Excellent & very accurate points, Brad.

I guess one of the points I was trying to make (but failed to specifically state) is exactly what you stated.
So long as a company doesn't say "Escrow" and keeps its legalese vaguer in that regard it can avoid the legal "Escrow" laws.

Of course, as circumstances happened, one of the ONLY domain registrar's that actually said "Escrow" turned out to be more of a fraud than the various domain "marketplaces" that didn't say "Escrow". So customers that DID do a bit of due diligence actually could have made their own situation worse, instead of better.

 

[Future Sensors]

@GNP, I think you're correct. Rob Monster is a very charismatic* man, who managed to convince many people by just talking, and talking, and talking. Combined with some gorgeous (but empty) marketing. Not everyone could see through that, or investigate what it really was. We already have a day job on figuring out things in this thread.

*Charismatic is most often used in a positive way as a compliment, but it can also be applied to people who influence others in a negative way, such as a charismatic cult leader.

 

[bmugford]

Excellent & very accurate points, Brad.

I guess one of the points I was trying to make (but failed to specifically state) is exactly what you stated.
So long as a company doesn't say "Escrow" and keeps its legalese vaguer in that regard it can avoid the legal "Escrow" laws.

Of course, as circumstances happened, one of the ONLY domain registrar's that actually said "Escrow" turned out to be more of a fraud than the various domain "marketplaces" that didn't say "Escrow". So customers that DID do a bit of due diligence actually could have made their own situation worse, instead of better.

This is what Rob said about "escrow". What he doesn't seem to realize is that his definition is irrelevant.
It is defined in laws and regulations, which apply to him and everyone else.

The sovereign citizen nonsense was a real red flag.

 

[NicTraders]

This is what Rob said about "escrow". What he doesn't seem to realize is that his definition is irrelevant.
It is defined in laws and regulations, which apply to him and everyone else.

The sovereign citizen nonsense was a real red flag.

Show attachment 234323

I sort of agreed with Rob that a registrar was the best-placed company to hold domains in escrow (i.e. be a 'domain escrow' company) since they actually could control the domain. However, E only ever fulfilled that side of the equation. They never bothered with the escrow side of things, which requires regulation, and more important than anything - NOT comingling funds! Anyone who knows anything about third-party transactions would know without a shadow of a doubt that these funds should always have been held in a trust account totally separate from company funds. The fact that this wasn't done beggars belief.

 

[NicTraders]

@GNP, I think you're correct. Rob Monster is a very charismatic* man, who managed to convince many people by just talking, and talking, and talking. Combined with some gorgeous (but empty) marketing. Not everyone could see through that, or investigate what it really was. We already have a day job on figuring out things in this thread.

*Charismatic is most often used in a positive way as a compliment, but it can also be applied to people who influence others in a negative way, such as a charismatic cult leader.

Yep, there was a lot of talking! It certainly did suck a lot of people in. He had the gift of the gab (no pun intended!!) and I must admit I was too willing to ignore certain warning signs and things I strongly disagreed with as a result of some of that.

 

[bmugford]

I sort of agreed with Rob that a registrar was the best-placed company to hold domains in escrow (i.e. be a 'domain escrow' company) since they actually could control the domain. However, E only ever fulfilled that side of the equation. They never bothered with the escrow side of things, which requires regulation, and more important than anything - NOT comingling funds! Anyone who knows anything about third-party transactions would know without a shadow of a doubt that these funds should always have been held in a trust account totally separate from company funds. The fact that this wasn't done beggars belief.

Yeah, you could make the argument that Escrow.com would be better if they actually facilitated the transfer, like with an escrow/title company in real estate.

However, they are properly licensed on the escrow side where Epik is not.

If Epik was properly licensed and followed industry standard practices, the escrow funds would have been protected.

In most situations, abuse of escrow funds like this would likely lead to severe consequences, both civil and criminal.

Brad

 

[GNP]

Yeah, you could make the argument that Escrow.com would be better if they actually facilitated the transfer, like with an escrow/title company in real estate.

However, they are properly licensed on the escrow side where Epik is not.

So basically what we find out regarding domain sales and escrow is:
There is probably ONE licensed escrow company (escrow .com)
There is a bunch of "market place" registrars.
There likely is NO domain registrar that ALSO is licensed for escrow.
Seems like a profitable, niche business opportunity for someone. Get it off the ground and once a bunch of people start using it you will eventually become (super) rich when GD comes asking to buy your company. LOL